You know what's cool? You are arguing for people not getting married. That's cool, because it is legal for people to no be married. But this thread is about people who DO want to get married but can't because it is not legal for them based on their sexual preference.

So basically your stance is that gay marriage should not be legal because YOU think that no marriage should be legal? Thanks for that, but it is not reality. So why argue from such an asinine position?

Not at all. I think we are both (all?) in favor of marriage equality. Where we differ is how to get there. You would add or edit laws until gay people can marry as they wish. I would de-legislate and remove laws until anyone that wants can marry freely under whichever standard or ethic they live under. How did we ever survive before government told us how to live our lives?
As Thoreau said, “I heartily accept the motto, — ‘That government is best which governs least.’”

Not at all. I think we are both (all?) in favor of marriage equality. Where we differ is how to get there. You would add or edit laws until gay people can marry as they wish. I would de-legislate and remove laws until anyone that wants can marry freely under whichever standard or ethic they live under. How did we ever survive before government told us how to live our lives?
As Thoreau said, “I heartily accept the motto, — ‘That government is best which governs least.’”

You want to get married without goverment involment cool no one is stopping you. Gays have been doing this for years. Have a cerimony without a certficate. Live togher call each other by martial titles and go on about your life. This is already perfectly legal. If you don't want the goverments definition of marrige you don't need to get married through them.

You want to get married without goverment involment cool no one is stopping you. Gays have been doing this for years. Have a cerimony without a certficate. Live togher call each other by martial titles and go on about your life. This is already perfectly legal. If you don't want the goverments definition of marrige you don't need to get married through them.

I agree that custody issues can be sticky, but un married people have children, too, so custody isn't strictly a marriage issue. Something like 40% of children are born to unwed parents.

Unwed biological parents. If I go into court against a girlfriend in a custody dispute it's a given that I have a "claim" to the child(ren). If I go into court against a boyfriend, and am not the birth father, what are my rights? In some states I would frankly have none.

Not at all. I think we are both (all?) in favor of marriage equality. Where we differ is how to get there. You would add or edit laws until gay people can marry as they wish. I would de-legislate and remove laws until anyone that wants can marry freely under whichever standard or ethic they live under. How did we ever survive before government told us how to live our lives?
As Thoreau said, “I heartily accept the motto, — ‘That government is best which governs least.’”

So how would you propose to handle everything else that is dependent on the legal definition or marriage? Would you just say that from now on anyone can be on anyone's insurance(which would make the raites astronomical), there would be no alimony(which would screw a lot of people), there would be no SSDI survivor benefits(which would leave a lot of old people homeless and broke), no spouse to make medical decisions(which would also raise health care costs), make more paperwork for lawyers and courts (because now you will have to have multiple contracts to cover what marriage easily does, also increasing court costs, lawyer costs, and backlog the courts).

Or are you saying that their should be no government and everyone should just handle their own buisness? Because if that is your view, then I will say you are just arguing for the sake of it, and are not serious. That would be anarchy and doesn't work very well.

You want to get married without goverment involment cool no one is stopping you. Gays have been doing this for years. Have a cerimony without a certficate. Live togher call each other by martial titles and go on about your life. This is already perfectly legal. If you don't want the goverments definition of marrige you don't need to get married through them.

That's fine and all, until someone is denied military disability benefits for married veterans. I know it's not that simple, but recognition of your status from the government is actually an important piece of the puzzle.

For instance, the two people in the below article aren't even eligible to be buried together in a veteran's cemetery:

[quote from the article]
The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was denied.
[/quote]

That's fine and all, until someone is denied military disability benefits for married veterans. I know it's not that simple, but recognition of your status from the government is actually an important piece of the puzzle.

For instance, the two people in the below article aren't even eligible to be buried together in a veteran's cemetery:

[quote from the article]
The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was denied.

[/QUOTE]

Congratulations you managed to put all my points together you get a bullshido gold star.

Let me go ahead and restate it yet again for those having a harder time following.

If you want government benefits you have to get married using the government and this is why it is important for our secular government make sure every adult that is capable of entering into a contract is able to enter into said marriage contract with another capable and consenting adult regardless of gender.

That's fine and all, until someone is denied military disability benefits for married veterans. I know it's not that simple, but recognition of your status from the government is actually an important piece of the puzzle.

For instance, the two people in the below article aren't even eligible to be buried together in a veteran's cemetery:

[quote from the article]
The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was denied.

[/QUOTE]

And recognition of your status is something the government should accept WITHOUT LIMITATION. The government should get out of the business of defining what marriage is and accept it as the People themselves define it. I'm no anarchist. I just want to see the system simplified by getting government the hell out of the marriage licensing business altogether.

The definition of a “license” demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” Why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? George Washington was married without license. Abraham Lincoln was married without license. So, how did we get where marriage licenses are issued? And how did we ever survive up until that point?

Government wasn't even in the marriage license business until the late 19th century, and even then the whole reason they got into the into it was to prevent interracial marriages. In the mid-1800’s, some states began allowing interracial marriages as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would be illegal. Now that society has deemed that interracial marriage is to be accepted, though, we still are stuck with the laws and the laws are being used to oppress another group. And so we unquestioningly and dutifully march down to the courthouse if we want to be married. Doesn't it make sense once that last group is deemed "equal" that this buggy whip industry goes by the wayside? Does no one see it as a remnant of an ugly, bygone era?

And recognition of your status is something the government should accept WITHOUT LIMITATION. The government should get out of the business of defining what marriage is and accept it as the People themselves define it. I'm no anarchist. I just want to see the system simplified by getting government the hell out of the marriage licensing business altogether.

The definition of a “license” demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” Why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? George Washington was married without license. Abraham Lincoln was married without license. So, how did we get where marriage licenses are issued? And how did we ever survive up until that point?

Government wasn't even in the marriage license business until the late 19th century, and even then the whole reason they got into the into it was to prevent interracial marriages. In the mid-1800’s, some states began allowing interracial marriages as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would be illegal. Now that society has deemed that interracial marriage is to be accepted, though, we still are stuck with the laws and the laws are being used to oppress another group. And so we unquestioningly and dutifully march down to the courthouse if we want to be married. Doesn't it make sense once that last group is deemed "equal" that this buggy whip industry goes by the wayside? Does no one see it as a remnant of an ugly, bygone era?

Wow, this is a selective cherry picked version of the government and marriage licenses.